[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions >> Columba Toner v NWIFHE (Preliminary Hearing Jurisdiction) [2002] NIIT 848_02 (18 November 023) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2002/155.html Cite as: [2002] NIIT 848_2, [2002] NIIT 848_02

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

 


Columba Toner v NWIFHE (Preliminary Hearing Jurisdiction) [2002] NIIT 848_02 (18 November 023)

THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF: 848/02

APPLICANT: Columba Toner

RESPONDENT: NWIFHE

DECISION ON A PRELIMINARY ISSUE

The unanimous decision of the Tribunal that the applicant has not demonstrated that the tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain his complaint in view of the provisions of Article 55 of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996.

Appearances:

The applicant did not appear and did not instruct any representation but the tribunal considered his Originating Application before reaching its decision pursuant to the provisions of Rule 9(3) of the Industrial Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1996.

The respondent was represented by Miss W Davidson, Barrister-at-Law, instructed by J Blair, Employment Law Solicitors.

1. This matter came before the tribunal by way of a preliminary point to determine whether or not the tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the applicant's claim for an alleged deduction from wages arising out of an non-payment of a travel claim between February and April 2001.
2. It appeared that at the very least it was plain to the applicant that this claim was not going to be paid in or around 1 August 2001. Yet the applicant's Originating Application was only received at the Industrial Tribunal on 4 April 2002. Article 55(4) of the above Order provides as follows:-

"Where the Industrial Tribunal is satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for complaint under this Article to be presented before the end of the relevant period of three months, the tribunal may consider the complaint if it is presented within such further period as the tribunal considers reasonable".

3. In this case, there was no evidence of behalf of the applicant to enable the tribunal to find whether or not the applicant was in any way prevented from lodging his complaint. Therefore, the question of the reasonableness of the period within which the applicant later presented his complaint does not fall to be determined.

Chairman:

Date and place of hearing: 18 November 2002, Belfast

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: